Like common bandits, muslims are after your property

     The koran instructs muslims to spread its teachings through violence.  When a foreign people are conquered, it says to issue an ultimatum that each of the newly subjugated individuals must pay a "head tax"--defined as the handing over of all of one's property--or, the dissenters will die by the sword.  And, even if one does comply with this, the muslims may kill you anyway.

This is a rather enlightening glimpse into the motivation of many muslims.  Are they really all misguided fanatics?  Or, do they have a very real material goal, akin to that of the common bandit?

I find it interesting that upon meeting muslims for the first time, they exhibit an immense generosity.  This can lull the off-guard non-believer, and warm one towards islam.  After all, why not give away 1%, when you are going to get 100% back?

Another point on this topic, that is rarely discussed, is the history of oil in the Middle East.  It was Western oil companies that discovered, bought, and developed the original oil properties in the region.  In most cases, they were nationalized by the heavily islamic governments that took a position that they were going to hold them--a more resolute one than the Western countries' will to restore the properties to their rightful owners.

So, as you can see, as crazy as islam is, there is a material payoff when the muslims succeed.

Paul Wharton
Objectivist Capitalist Medicine Promoter

Special thanks to Eli Lilly & Co. (LLY) for being the fuel of my mind

A Capitalism Prize Could Cure Ebola

     The growing Ebola outbreak in America is very serious--not only because it is usually deadly and contagious--but also, because there are only a couple of known treatments with doses in extremely low supply.  One of the leading ones, known as "ZMapp", can take months to create--time which Americans likely do not have.

How did a catastrophic disease that has been known about since 1976, evade the medical industry's attention--when the economic demand for treatment could not have escaped Pharma's imagination of the profits that could be capitalized on, if there were millions of doses stored and ready to be sold?

Government Health Care is to blame.  True: in a Capitalist system, pharmaceutical companies would have the freedom to set prices for their products as they so choose.  But, that is what drives the cures to be in existence in the first place.  Under Government Health Care, there is shoddy treatment in very limited supply--so, if one doesn't want to spend a lot to save one's life, one is forced to not have the option of a big purchase (as well as a long life).

Ebola is a crisis--and, it's just going to get worse.  While Obama runs around with his guys in body suits, quarantining and killing off the infected population, I propose a market-based solution.  There should be a prize put forth in America in order to cure the disease--that being a Congressional law that the American medical company that cures the most Ebola-infected Americans, through the sale of its products to private individuals and businesses, will be granted the following charter:

The government of the United States of America hereby recognizes a Separation of State from Economics of the awarded Company in the form of a charter of Capitalism--defined as government being prohibited from compelling the awarded Company: to pay taxes, adhere to regulations, and have government force initiated against it in any physical way--for at least the next 100 years.

That, individuals of planet Earth, is how one cures the Ebola epidemic.

Paul Wharton
Objectivist Capitalist Medicine Promoter

Special thanks to Eli Lilly & Co. (LLY) for being the fuel of my mind

The Limitations of Freedom of Religion

     The Bill of Rights guarantees Freedom of Religion.  However, this license to be left alone, to believe what one wants, is dependent upon the legality of the rest of one's actions.  To illustrate the contrary, intrinsic philosophy, explore the following example:

Suppose an individual decided to subscribe to a new "religion" called "malsi".  This religion believes that it is God's will that malsians capture, torture, and then behead all government workers and judges in the judicial branch of government where one lives.  Only when the last person in the judiciary is "cleansed" will the malsians be able to go to a heavenly paradise.

Obviously, if this set of beliefs is ruled intrinsically sacred because of the American Constitution, then this country, and especially its judiciary, are in for a horrific future.  But, in reason it is not.  Why is that?

To be free to exercise one's Individual Rights is dependent upon one's respect for the Individual Rights of everyone else.  If a known religion, such as "malsi", notoriously advocates a threat towards the freedom and safety of individuals, then judicially preemptive measures may be warranted--especially in war-time.

Finally, pointing out that Freedom of Religion is not intrinsically absolute, in law, does not give Congress the mandate to declare that Right null and void.  Freedom of Religion still stands even if one prosecutes on the grounds that a religion is advocating threats to innocent individuals.  The element of war-time military association acts to magnify the perceived level of threats that would otherwise be considered as less than they are.

Paul Wharton
Objectivist Capitalist Medicine Promoter

Special thanks to Eli Lilly & Co. (LLY) for being the fuel of my mind